InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Colorado’s DIDMCA opt-out blocked by preliminary injunction
On June 18, U.S. District Court of the District of Colorado granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by several financial services trade associations, enjoining Colorado from enforcing Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-13-106 with respect to any loan made by the plaintiffs’ members, to the extent the loan is not “made in” Colorado. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the enjoined provision, contained in Section 3 of Colorado HB 23-1229 and scheduled to become effective on July 1, opted Colorado out of Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) which allowed state-chartered banks to export rates of their home state across state borders. Trade groups sued before this law went into effect (covered here), with the FDIC writing a brief in support of the Colorado Attorney General (here).
The court’s decision turned on its interpretation of DIDMCA Section 525, which allowed states to enact laws opting loans “made in” the enacting state out of Section 521, the provision granting insured state banks the same rate exportation authority as national banks. In support of their motion, the plaintiff trade associations argued that loans to Colorado residents by insured state banks located in other states were “made in” the bank’s home state or the state where key loan-making functions occur. Colorado disagreed, contending that a loan was “made in” both the borrower’s state and the state where the lender is located for purposes of applying the DIDMCA opt out provision.
In granting the preliminary injunction, the court found the argument that only a bank “makes” a loan was “more consistent both with the ordinary colloquial understanding of who ‘makes’ a loan, and, more importantly, with how the words ‘make’ and ‘made’ are used consistently throughout the text of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, including the [DIDMCA] amendments.” The court explained that “the answer to the question of where a loan is ‘made’ depended on the location of the bank, and where the bank takes certain actions, but not on the location of the borrower who ‘obtains’ or ‘receives’ the loan.” Although the court noted that agency interpretations did not address directly how to apply Section 525 of DIDMCA, it found that “[t]o the extent the agency interpretations are helpful, they support the conclusion that in common parlance, a loan is ‘made’ by a bank and therefore where the bank is located and performs its loan-making functions” (italics omitted).
Colorado has 30 days to appeal the district court’s decision to the Tenth Circuit.
California enacts new consumer protections on disclosures and marketing
On June 14, the Governor of California approved SB 1096 (the “Act”) to amend the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and regulate mailed solicitations about consumer financial products. Subject to certain exceptions, the amendment will require covered persons to include a disclosure statement in enlarged, bold type on the front of any envelope containing a solicitation for a consumer financial product or service that would be sent by physical mail. The bolded disclosure must state clearly that the content would be an advertisement and that the recipient will “not [be] required to make any payment or take any other action in response to this offer.”
The Act also specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including, among other things, misrepresenting the terms of a transaction, inserting unconscionable provisions in contracts, and advertising prices for goods or services that do not include all mandatory fees or charges, subject to certain exceptions. It also will prohibit deceptive representations using geographic origin designations or making false claims about a product’s sponsorship or benefits. The legislation will extend to mortgage brokers and lenders and prohibit them from using a home improvement contractor to negotiate the terms of a loan secured by the home that would be used to finance a home improvement contract or any portion of such a contract. Additionally, the bill will address issues related to advertising and promoting events concerning veterans’ benefits. If it were to be the case, the Act will mandate that any such promotion disclose that the event was not sponsored by or affiliated with the VA, the California Department of Veterans Affairs, or any other congressionally-chartered or recognized organization for veterans, or any of their auxiliaries. The Act will go into effect on January 1, 2025.
Illinois enacts Interchange Fee Prohibition Act within state budget
Recently, the Governor of Illinois signed into law the state’s new budget (the “budget”) which will include a provision cited as the Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (the “Act”). The Act’s language was originally proposed as an amendment to a separate act, HB 4951, but the language was instead inserted in the state budget.
The Act will ban credit card issuers and any other entity that facilitates or processes electronic payments from charging an interchange fee on the tax or gratuity of a transaction. The Act defines an interchange fee as a fee “established, charged, or received” by a payment card network as compensation for its involvement in a transaction. The Act specified that it will be a merchant’s responsibility to bifurcate the tax/gratuity surcharges from the good’s subtotal. Alternatively, a merchant may submit tax information to the issuer’s bank no later than 180 days after the transaction for reimbursement. A credit card issuer cannot change the composition of its interchange fees to offset the amount that will be saved by merchants under this Act. A violation of the Act will result in a civil penalty of $1,000 per transaction, and the issuer must refund the merchant any interchange fees collected on taxes or gratuities.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) welcomed the Act’s passage claiming it would “bring down costs and eliminate fees” in electronic transactions. The Act will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
Connecticut amends its Money Transmission Act
On June 6, Connecticut enacted HB 5211 (the “Act”), amending laws regulating virtual currency and money transmission. The Act updated "permissible investment" to include additional forms of assets and clarified that “cash” will include demand deposits and cash equivalents, such as international wires in transit to the payee, transmission receivables funded by debit cards or credit cards, and AAA-rated mutual funds. The Act also stated that after October 1, 2024, the owning, operating, solicitation, marketing, advertising, or facilitation of virtual currency kiosks will be considered to “money transmission” business and thus will require persons to be state licensed as a money transmitter.
Additionally, the Act will require money transmission licensees to maintain a detailed accounting plan on winding down operations, as well as meet certain conditions to terminate a licensee’s businesses. Furthermore, the Act will require licensees to communicate third party disclosure information to consumers, as well as provide a physical receipt for transactions to senders. The Act also expanded the banking commissioner’s authority to adopt forms and orders governing digital assets to expressly include nonfungible tokens.
Connecticut amends its Money Transmission Act
On June 6, Connecticut enacted HB 5211 (the “Act”), amending laws regulating virtual currency and money transmission. The Act updated "permissible investment" to include additional forms of assets and clarified that “cash” will include demand deposits and cash equivalents, such as international wires in transit to the payee, transmission receivables funded by debit cards or credit cards, and AAA-rated mutual funds. The Act also stated that after October 1, the owning, operating, solicitation, marketing, advertising, or facilitation of virtual currency kiosks will be considered to “money transmission” business and thus will require persons to be state licensed as a money transmitter.
Additionally, the Act will require money transmission licensees to maintain a detailed accounting plan on winding down operations, as well as meet certain conditions to terminate a licensee’s businesses. Furthermore, the Act will require licensees to communicate third party disclosure information to consumers, as well as provide a physical receipt for transactions to senders. The Act also expanded the banking commissioner’s authority to adopt forms and orders governing digital assets to expressly include nonfungible tokens.
Colorado tightens regulations related to debt settlement and collection practices
On June 6, the Governor of Colorado signed into law HB 1380 (the “Act”) which revised the state’s consumer protection laws related to debt collection, credit services organizations, and debt management service providers. Key provisions of the law included:
- Debt collectors must now include their name and the original creditor’s name in legal actions against consumers and possess full authority to settle the debt.
- Credit services organizations will be required to provide the state administrator with essential business information (including name and address) and pay an annual notification fee.
- The state administrator can issue cease-and-desist orders and impose penalties of up to $1,500 per violation of the Code.
- Debt-management service providers cannot provide their services to consumers unless they have prepared a debt management plan for the individual that, among other things, lists all the creditors that the service provider expects to participate, and not to participate, in the plan, as well as those that it expects to participate but will not grant concessions to the consumer.
- Providing the state administrator the ability to adopt rules regarding debt settlement service fees by March 1, 2025, provided the rules do not “unduly limit consumer access to debt management services programs based on available state and national data.”
The Act’s amendments will go into effect 91 days following final adjournment of the General Assembly, subject to approval by Colorado voters if a referendum would be filed.
Connecticut amends provisions of its Emergency Mortgage Assistance Payment program
On May 28, the Governor of Connecticut signed SB 283 (the “Act”) into law, introducing amendments to the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority’s (CHFA) Emergency Mortgage Assistance Payment (EMAP) program. This law will extend benefits to homeowners who are in foreclosure and forbearance. Under the new legislation, homeowners must enter into a repayment agreement directly with the CHFA, which will now receive the monthly payments previously made to the loan originator.
The Act will modify the criteria for financial hardship eligibility, remove utility and heating expenses from the total housing expense calculation, and grant the CHFA authority to factor in equity in determining a homeowner’s ability to repay timely. Additionally, the CHFA will provide greater flexibility regarding the repayment agreement terms, along with several other amendments. The Act’s provisions will go into effect on October 1.
Georgia bans CBDCs for government use
Recently, Georgia enacted HB 1053 (the “Act”) which will prohibit government agencies from engaging with central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Specifically, the legislation will prevent state government agencies from accepting CBDCs as a form of payment or from participating in any pilot programs involving CBDCs. Georgia representatives banned CBDCs within government operations citing potential “privacy and security concerns” for individuals and businesses, called them an “unacceptable expansion” of federal authority, and were concerned that a CBDC could disrupt the current banking systems and “diminish” community bank and credit unions’ roles in the financial system. The ban will go into effect on July 1.
Colorado extends its money transmitter regulations
On June 3, Colorado enacted HB 1328, (the “Act”), which will extend the state’s regulation of money transmitters until September 2030. The law had previously been scheduled to sunset on September 1. The Act will implement the recommendations of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, as specified in the Department's sunset review of the regulation of money transmitters. Specifically, the Act will (i) authorize the State Banking Board to suspend a money transmitter’s license and issue cease and desist orders; (ii) expand the requirement to furnish surety bond coverage to include all money transmission, rather than any exchange; (iii) increase the maximum penalty for failure to allow an examination from $100 to $1,000 per day the refusal continues and for failure to report up to $750 per day; and (iv) expand the licensing exemption to cover out-of-state banks. The Act will go into effect 90 days following the adjournment of the General Assembly, assuming a referendum petition will not be filed.
Michigan requires annual reporting on payday lending from director
On May 22, Michigan enacted HB 4343 (the “Act”) to include new reporting requirements regarding payday lending for the director or the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (the Department). By October 31 of each year, from 2025 to 2031, the director of the Department must submit a report to the relevant senate and house committees tasked with the oversight of banking and financial services issues. The report must cover various aspects of the payday lending business in the state, including the number of licensed providers, program fees received by the Department, and local and statewide statistics on provider locations, transaction volumes and amounts, and customer usage patterns. The Act will require the Department to include the names and addresses of all licensees, the number of complaints filed against both licensees and non-licensees arising from transactions conducted in the state, and any additional information deemed relevant by the director. According to the Act, the purpose of this reporting will be to enforce and regulate the payday lending industry. The Act will go into effect after the 91st day after the final adjournment of the 2024 regular session.